Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Qatar World Cup


kent_white

Recommended Posts

  • Members
4 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Know your history. The British created Qatar as a protectorate and installed the Al Khalifa bedouin tribe as the royal family (the larger of the two bedouin tribes on the peninsula) I lived there for two years in the 70s when it was like the wild west, so they've actually come a long way towards our (alien to them) values since then*. Qatar stopped being a British Protectorate in 1971 but we continued to run it for years afterwards and still have a strong influence in the the Qatari government. I imported British construction materials to build the place - which was easy because we paid the British architects to specify British Standards so whoever won the contract had to buy the materials from us. Corrupt as f*** it was the British who profited, the British who cooperated with the establishment and the British who set the country on it's current path.

*An example: In 78 I met a young English public school lad who was a photographer. Brought up in London by his white English art dealer mum he'd come to find his father who he'd found out was a Pathan "guest worker" in Qatar so we helped him. All the "guest workers" lived in a cardboard and corrugated shanty town at the edge of Doha so we went there and eventually tracked him down. Didn't speak English so we helped the lad communicate with his dad in broken Arabic and they got on really well. Two days later, the minor sheikh who owned the land that the shanty town was on sent in armed guards and bulldozers, shot 15 workers and levelled the place. The lad's dad went back to Afghanistan but within a few years the first laws were passed to ensure employers had to provide accommodation.

Given that they beat and killed immigrants with impunity then, there are definite signs of improvement although obviously not as fast as we would like.

But don't delude yourself that we are squeaky clean.

 

So none of us can have a bad opinion on a country where sex outside of marriage can mean being flogged/stoned/put into prison and doing gay stuff can lead to a prison sentence?

We can't have a bad opinion because "we are not squeeky clean".

Really?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

78? So only 44 years ago then.

As I say it's a point, but not a valid stance for not being able to look say some things in other country's are bad.

I'm not saying it's not bad. I'm saying it's better than it was and we're pretty bad ourselves.

Nor am I denying you the opportunity to say WTF you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DazBob said:

So none of us can have a bad opinion on a country where sex outside of marriage can mean being flogged/stoned/put into prison and doing gay stuff can lead to a prison sentence?

We can't have a bad opinion because "we are not squeeky clean".

Really?

 

I know, daft.

And most of us know this stuff already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DazBob said:

So none of us can have a bad opinion on a country where sex outside of marriage can mean being flogged/stoned/put into prison and doing gay stuff can lead to a prison sentence?

We can't have a bad opinion because "we are not squeeky clean".

Really?

 

Who says you can't have an opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Are you talking about the British Protectorate system? (Cayman Islands, BVI, Bahamas etc?)

Technically legal, which is why the rich stash their money there - but dodgy as f***.

The top 10 biggest enablers of global corporate tax abuse

1 British Virgin Islands (British overseas territory)
2 Cayman Islands (British overseas territory)
3 Bermuda (British overseas territory)
4 Netherlands
5 Switzerland
6 Luxembourg
7 Hong Kong
8 Jersey (British crown dependency)
9 Singapore
10 United Arab Emirates

No I’m talking about the highlighted part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wanderlust said:

Why?

It's a forum FFS and I can say it if I want - even if it doesn't tally with your take on it. Isn't that the point of discussion - or are we all supposed to nod in agreement at everything?

Eh? You made the case that because the UK has unsavory parts of its history we can't effectively criticise any other country, then said we can say what we want; so its not about agreement.

I was simply pointing out that if we can all say what we want, why post historically obvious facts about the UK as it obviously has no bearing whatsoever on calling out Qatar's human right's record as you've said yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, royal white said:

No I’m talking about the highlighted part. 

Oh.

 

Pretty sure torturing and murdering POWs isn't legal which is why they were prosecuted,

Homophobia, sexism and racism aren't legal either.

Workers dying in Qatar is subject to prosecution of employers under Qatari law - but as the vast majority of companies are ultimately owned by a member of the Royal Family - the Al Khalifas - chances of a successful prosecution are zero. The court system is bent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Whilst valid points, its not the government we're asking to critise Qatar - it's about people being made aware of human rights issues that are valid. 

over 6k people didn't die in the building of wembley, I have a lovely night the other week at the Admrial Duncan with a load of woofters all copping off and with their partners and not getting arrested.

So whilst historcially its correct what you say, it doesn't also mean the public can't point out these issues of social change otherwise we'll never move forward.

Its the sort of argument I'd expect from a sixth form student, lacking in breath and development.

 

I don’t think the 6k that died out there died as a result of building a stadium. The interview Gary Neville did highlighted this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not in Crawley said:

Eh? You made the case that because the UK has unsavory parts of its history we can't effectively criticise any other country, then said we can say what we want; so its not about agreement.

I was simply pointing out that if we can all say what we want, why post historically obvious facts about the UK as it obviously has no bearing whatsoever on calling out Qatar's human right's record as you've said yourself.

Pedantry.

I didn't say you can't criticise. I questioned the pot/kettle aspect of the criticism emanating from this country. notably the parameters of the media dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Oh.

 

Pretty sure torturing and murdering POWs isn't legal which is why they were prosecuted,

Homophobia, sexism and racism aren't legal either.

Workers dying in Qatar is subject to prosecution of employers under Qatari law - but as the vast majority of companies are ultimately owned by a member of the Royal Family - the Al Khalifas - chances of a successful prosecution are zero. The court system is bent.

You’re not making much sense here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Pedantry.

I didn't say you can't criticise. I questioned the pot/kettle aspect of the criticism emanating from this country. notably the parameters of the media dialogue.

Not from the media I've heard, there certainly isn't a do what we do dialogue.

Also, as far as I know we don't lock up the gays, and allow women the same rights as men.

So not pedantry at all, just pointing out why a UK citizen might be able to be uncomfortable and question Qatars human rights record.

Edited by Not in Crawley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

Then I don't understand your point as the response relates directly to the bit you highlighted.

“The real hypocrisy is that Brits pontificate about human rights and social values when our own soldiers are found guilty of torturing and murdering POWs and racism, sexism and homophobia are rife in the UK”

The fact that you told us people have been found guilty is countering your argument. As you have just said this 

 

“Workers dying in Qatar is subject to prosecution of employers under Qatari law - but as the vast majority of companies are ultimately owned by a member of the Royal Family - the Al Khalifas - chances of a successful prosecution are zero. The court system is bent”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhoo 12k Brits die every year from work related lung issues alone and 1.7 million Brits have long term work related illnesses according to the HSE.  Not that context makes treatment of guest workers in Qatar any better because it is indeed shit. But Qatari guest workers do earn massive wages compared to their countries of origin, often 10 times the average, and they know the risks as their compatriots have been going there for donkeys years - again no mitigation for their treatment but it is a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

“Workers dying in Qatar is subject to prosecution of employers under Qatari law - but as the vast majority of companies are ultimately owned by a member of the Royal Family - the Al Khalifas - chances of a successful prosecution are zero. The court system is bent”

Talking of the bent court system, not sure if it's still the same today but, my mate's elderly Scottish mum ran down and killed a child than ran into the road in Qatar. She was banged up in a hell hole of a prison for 3 days and dragged into court where the family's lawyer told a load of lies about the incident to the judge. What he didn't know was that the old lady spoke fluent Arabic, reported what had actually happened, reported about her treatment by the police and prison guards, etc etc. She wasn't given a jail sentence but under Qatari law had to pay reparations to the family.

This is where it got interesting as the reparations were set depending on WHO you killed. In effect there was a scale fees than was something like

Qatari national (most bucks)

Other Arab Muslim

Muslim who was European/Yank/developed world

Developed World non-muslim or muslim from a poor country e.g. Pakistan,Africa

Non-muslim from a poor country e.g. India, Phillipines (least bucks)

They never publicly admitted this reparation scale was in operation but every judgement they made reflected it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.